PDA

View Full Version : o u think NIKE is making a rip off out of us consumers?


holy_angel
06-27-2007, 12:54 AM
Federer used to change clothes a few times in the same season....now he has changed almost every tournament he plays in....

BreakPoint
06-27-2007, 01:09 AM
And what does someone changing his clothes have anything to do with US consumers? :confused:

Fred The Red
06-27-2007, 04:38 AM
Federer used to change clothes a few times in the same season....now he has changed almost every tournament he plays in....

i don't think you're right about this.

Last year Fed played with 5 different styles of shirts.
This year he played with 3 different styles.

But what he sometimes does is that he changes to other colours in these shirts.

If you look to golf: Tiger plays with approx 40 different Nike shirts in year

and also...you don't have to buy them all...

Duzza
06-27-2007, 05:55 AM
i don't think you're right about this.

Last year Fed played with 5 different styles of shirts.
This year he played with 3 different styles.


You know it's June in 2007? And he's already into his third, meaning he'll probably easily get to 5 by the END of the year?

Nuke
06-27-2007, 06:02 AM
Well, Nike's not ripping ME off. They can't make you buy it, you know. You do it to yourself.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
06-27-2007, 07:33 AM
Federer used to change clothes a few times in the same season....now he has changed almost every tournament he plays in....

Thatís if you buy the stuff, nobody is making you patronize Nike or their latest tennis apparel.

Plus, he is sponsored by Nike and I think he could change shirt more than he normally does, just like to keep it simple.

armand
06-27-2007, 07:45 AM
Nevermind the consumers, the real crime are the sweatshops they run. Some poor chinese dude works on a 12hr shift making 30 cents for the day. The shirt costs $5 to make but they sell it for 50!

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
06-27-2007, 08:15 AM
Nike isn't the only company that does this, they maybe one of the biggest but not the only.

BreakPoint
06-27-2007, 08:46 AM
Nevermind the consumers, the real crime are the sweatshops they run. Some poor chinese dude works on a 12hr shift making 30 cents for the day. The shirt costs $5 to make but they sell it for 50!
Yes, it's called capitalism and it's how great economies are built.

BTW, they cannot sell it for $50 unless people are willing to pay $50 for it. It's all supply and demand. A public company has the responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profits.

BTW, the workers make more than 30 cents a day and it's still better than making zero a day.

baros
06-27-2007, 08:54 AM
Federer used to change clothes a few times in the same season....now he has changed almost every tournament he plays in....

what a looser you buy clothes just because he wears it ha ha

armand
06-27-2007, 08:59 AM
Yes, it's called capitalism and it's how great economies are built.

BTW, they cannot sell it for $50 unless people are willing to pay $50 for it. It's all supply and demand. A public company has the responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profits.

BTW, the workers make more than 30 cents a day and it's still better than making zero a day.Really this easy to justify slave labour?

Chauvalito
06-27-2007, 09:12 AM
Nevermind the consumers, the real crime are the sweatshops they run. Some poor chinese dude works on a 12hr shift making 30 cents for the day. The shirt costs $5 to make but they sell it for 50!

I would love to hear your solution to this problem.

BreakPoint
06-27-2007, 09:16 AM
Really this easy to justify slave labour?
Nobody is forcing anybody to work in a Nike factory. They are doing so of their own free will. They were not rounded up at gunpoint, brought over in slave ships in chains, and forced to work for no pay like the African slaves were. The Chinese workers can go back to their farms and make much, much less money or nothing. These factories actually give these poor peasants an opportunity to make more money. That's why they line up in droves to try and get jobs in these factories. That's how capitalism works in a market based economy. It's really no different than investment bankers on Wall Street toiling 18 hour days and 120 hour work weeks. Why do they do it? More money! That's why so many people are competing to get in. The difference is the standard of what's considered "a lot of money". $5 a day may not sound like a lot to you, but it does to them and more than they can make doing anything else.

Would you rather make your clothes and shoes yourself? Probably not.

If not, would you be willing to pay $150 for a Nike shirt and $300 for a pair of Nike shoes just so the Chinese workers can get paid better? Somehow I doubt it. I'm guessing you prefer to pay less, right? So Nike is just doing exactly what you want them to do.

armand
06-27-2007, 09:50 AM
Well, I don't want to get into a whole thing here, but it's not even about the money, it's the conditions they are forced to work in and to live in.

BreakPoint
06-27-2007, 10:12 AM
Well, I don't want to get into a whole thing here, but it's not even about the money, it's the conditions they are forced to work in and to live in.
But the whole point is they're not forced. They can leave and go back to living in even worse conditions. It's the lesser of two evils. They live in a poor, third world country. It goes with the territory. The only way to make them richer quicker is to make us poorer in the meantime. Think about it.

carrwash13
06-27-2007, 10:17 AM
Really this easy to justify slave labour?

Nike actually has very good factory conditions now and recieved very high ratings for them. The problems they had were from a while back which caused such an uproar that they make sure to keep good conditions. I'd also hardly call it slave labor. People in that country come from very large distances just to work at those factories. They detail it a little bit in a book called: "Just do it: The Nike Spirit in the Corporate World." They follow the story of a couple workers over there for a chapter or two...interesting stuff.

Babolast
06-27-2007, 10:27 AM
Roger will wear 2 more styles of shirt this year so 5 in total.

No one is makeing you buy any so what exactly is the point of the thread?

Mnguyen05
06-27-2007, 02:26 PM
Last year Fed played with 5 different styles of shirts.
This year he played with 3 different styles.

ACTUALLY, he has played with 5 dif. styles:
1 Nike Sphere Control Crew
2 Nike Sphere Control Polo
3 Nike Power Crew
4 Nike Global Control Crew
5 Nike All England Polo

goosala
06-27-2007, 02:35 PM
I don't even bother buying apparel. I just play in T-shirts and no name shorts. In fact I buy my sports apparel at Target. Unless your club has strict dress code then a T-shirt or better yet no shirt is great to play in. Here in Texas no shirt is cooler.

BreakPoint
06-27-2007, 02:38 PM
ACTUALLY, he has played with 5 dif. styles:
1 Nike Sphere Control Crew
2 Nike Sphere Control Polo
3 Nike Power Crew
4 Nike Global Control Crew
5 Nike All England Polo
Yeah, but who's counting? ;) LOL

BreakPoint
06-27-2007, 02:42 PM
I think anyone who needs to dress in exactly what Federer is currently wearing to feel it makes them play better tennis has got more issues than just how quickly Federer changes his shirts.

darkblue
06-27-2007, 02:44 PM
Well, Nike's not ripping ME off. They can't make you buy it, you know. You do it to yourself.

WELL SAID. THANK U

darkblue
06-27-2007, 02:48 PM
Well, I don't want to get into a whole thing here, but it's not even about the money, it's the conditions they are forced to work in and to live in.

why don't u "get into a whole thing" about economics and global marketplace?

ahh... I see - you don't like MUGATU... that must be it. u should be next Zoolander.

Fred The Red
06-27-2007, 11:37 PM
ACTUALLY, he has played with 5 dif. styles:
1 Nike Sphere Control Crew
2 Nike Sphere Control Polo
3 Nike Power Crew
4 Nike Global Control Crew
5 Nike All England Polo


I count the white Indian Wells shirt in the same style as the Aus Open
and Dubai shirt.
Without the collar and the coulour pattern it's just the same.

Fred The Red
06-27-2007, 11:47 PM
You know it's June in 2007? And he's already into his third, meaning he'll probably easily get to 5 by the END of the year?

that's normal business:

1.Spring collection: Aus Open, etc
2.Summer collection: Miami and the clay court season
3.Fall collection: Wimbledon and US Open series.

4.US Open shirt, etc
5.Winter collection: year-end Masters shirt.

this is often the thing altough it's never certain...

Babolast
06-27-2007, 11:53 PM
Fed will wear only 2 more styles of shirt this year.

For the TMS in North America he will wear the gray body map polo with black shorts.

For the US Open Fed will wear the body map polo in argon blue during the day and white shorts and the black body map polo with gray shorts for his nite matches.

For winter Fed will wear the polo Fedlite posted afew weeks ago.

He will either wear the red body map polo with navy shorts for the Madrid masters or the navy body map polo with red shorts. He will then switch the colours up for the Masters series cup.

OrangeOne
06-28-2007, 12:00 AM
They detail it a little bit in a book called: "Just do it: The Nike Spirit in the Corporate World." They follow the story of a couple workers over there for a chapter or two...interesting stuff.

Who is 'they' in this instance? ....and please don't tell me it's Nike telling us about how good Nike is, because I'm not buying that!

I don't even bother buying apparel. I just play in T-shirts and no name shorts.

Hate to break it to you, but all clothing is 'apparel'.

I think anyone who needs to dress in exactly what Federer is currently wearing to feel it makes them play better tennis has got more issues than just how quickly Federer changes his shirts.

I think people should dress in whatever makes them happy, for whatever reason they so choose.

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 12:16 AM
I think people should dress in whatever makes them happy, for whatever reason they so choose.
Did you read the OP? He doesn't sound very happy to me. In fact, he sounds upset that Federer is forcing him to change his clothes. So in this case, choosing to dress the way he wants to is making him unhappy.

And to publicly complain that someone he doesn't know changes their clothes too often and to be so upset about it is, well, a bit wierd.

OrangeOne
06-28-2007, 12:40 AM
Did you read the OP?

Yes.

He doesn't sound very happy to me. In fact, he sounds upset that Federer is forcing him to change his clothes.

Actually, I believe he lays the blame at the feet of Nike, not Fed.

And to publicly complain that someone he doesn't know changes their clothes too often and to be so upset about it is, well, a bit wierd.

Weird is often explained by a lack of age / maturity, or to put the positive spin on it, 'youthful exuberance'.

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 07:42 AM
Actually, I believe he lays the blame at the feet of Nike, not Fed.

Maybe, maybe not. If Nike made Andrei Pavel change his Nike shirts every match, I doubt the OP would run out and buy the latest Nike shirts nor would he even care. So I think it's Federer that's driving him crazy.

OrangeOne
06-28-2007, 08:20 AM
Maybe, maybe not. If Nike made Andrei Pavel change his Nike shirts every match, I doubt the OP would run out and buy the latest Nike shirts nor would he even care. So I think it's Federer that's driving him crazy.

Topic:
o u think NIKE is making a rip off out of us consumers? [sic] (and his emphasis, not mine)

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 08:54 AM
Topic:
o u think NIKE is making a rip off out of us consumers? [sic] (and his emphasis, not mine)
But his obssession is clearly with Federer and not with Nike as he only mentions Federer and not all the Nike sponsored players. And as with most obsessions, there's a thin line between love and hate.

LafayetteHitter
06-28-2007, 12:00 PM
The local Chili's here changed the color of the servers shirts about a month ago and it doesn't bother me a bit either...what difference does it make how many times Federer changes shirts, is it tennis or a Paris runway?

stormholloway
06-28-2007, 01:09 PM
Yes, it's called capitalism and it's how great economies are built.

BTW, they cannot sell it for $50 unless people are willing to pay $50 for it. It's all supply and demand. A public company has the responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profits.

BTW, the workers make more than 30 cents a day and it's still better than making zero a day.

That's an idiotic statement. You don't need slave labor to build an economy.

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 01:42 PM
That's an idiotic statement. You don't need slave labor to build an economy.
Why do people keep calling it "slave labor"? These people are not slaves. They are doing this work of their own free will and making money they couldn't have even imagined before.

Would you be willing to make your own shoes and clothes or pay triple the price for shoes and clothes so that these workers can make more money? Obviously most Americans are not and that's why there is almost no shoe nor apparel manufacturing left in the U.S.

BTW, how do you think this country's economy was built in the 1800's?

stormholloway
06-28-2007, 01:52 PM
No. The clothes should be made by Americans who are being paid American wages.

Nike is just taking advantage of the poor conditions of other nations.

Are you really using slavery in America as an example right after you just told me that we're not talking about slave labor?

crazysoccer00
06-28-2007, 01:54 PM
So... let me get this straight.
It's not Nike's fault for providing terrible work conditions and wages, but the workers' who keep working there?
Have you ever heard ot ethics?
Morals?

LafayetteHitter
06-28-2007, 01:58 PM
All this is essentially pointless as Nike will continue to grow as most Americans could really care less. Most of the countries where Nike has plants are countries where people will sell their own kids for money so Nike is just one of many problems in the countries that are afflicted with these problems.

OrangeOne
06-28-2007, 02:57 PM
Why do people keep calling it "slave labor"? These people are not slaves. They are doing this work of their own free will and making money they couldn't have even imagined before.

Or.... due to the sudden presence of large US multi-nationals, the cost-of-living rises to be equal to (or likely still higher) than whatever these people earn. Which then means that the people 'lucky' enough to be 'almost slaves' for Nike, etc - are the 'working rich', and everyone else becomes slightly poorer.

Would you be willing to make your own shoes and clothes or pay triple the price for shoes and clothes so that these workers can make more money? Obviously most Americans are not and that's why there is almost no shoe nor apparel manufacturing left in the U.S.

In fact, if you and others actually get off your butt and look for such things, you will no doubt find American-made shoes in at least some sectors, and if more people did this and actually cared, everyone would be quite surprised where the prices would head. In fact, there's nothing wrong with finding 'non-American' made product as long as it is made completely ethically elsewhere.

Also, in relation to triple the price, it would *certainly* be possible to manufacture clothing in the US directly competitive with Nike, etc in terms of quality, if a company was able to succeed without the money (and also profit percentage) required for branding, especially in this internet-oriented society.

BTW, how do you think this country's economy was built in the 1800's?

Oh my. Deplorable logic. The end justifies the means? I don't think so. That's possible the worst thing I've seen you say in my year on these boards.

You haven't heard of learning from history? I can't wait to hear you justify this statement.

forzainter
06-28-2007, 03:09 PM
Federer is forcing him to change his clothes.

i thought that quote was really funny, i just imagined federer standing over someone and forcing them to buy his new shirts:p

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 03:54 PM
No. The clothes should be made by Americans who are being paid American wages.
Which means triple the price for shoes and shirts since American workers make more than 10 times what Chinese workers make. American people have already voted no with their pocketbooks.

Nike is just taking advantage of the poor conditions of other nations.

No, it's the customers that would rather pay $100 instead of $300 for a pair of Nike Vapor IV's that are taking advantage of the poor conditions of other nations. But it's also the poor workers who are taking advantage of Nike to make a better living than they could otherwise.

Hey, somebody has to make shoes for the rest of the world. Do you want to do it?

Are you really using slavery in America as an example right after you just told me that we're not talking about slave labor?
I'm talking about poor working conditions, child labor, non-existance of a minimum wage, etc., all of which helped to build the American economy. I'm certainly not saying that it's right, but it's how economies get built more quickly than they could otherwise.

The Chinese economy is the fastest growing economy in the world and has been for quite a few years now. How do you think they're doing it? With magic? What do you think would happen if they raised the wages for Chinese workers to anything even remotely close to that of American workers? The Chinese economy would come to a standstill. All the foreign companies, and even the Chinese companies, would leave immediately and look for cheaper labor elsewhere. Do the Chinese workers or even the government want this? Of course not! There are many other countries in the world that would love for Nike to set up a factory in their country and give it's people jobs and to boost its economy and exports.

And to give slaves their due credit, they also helped greatly to build the American economy. America would not have grown nearly as quickly without them. But this has nothing to do with the workers in China today as they are not slaves. The only thing they have in common is that they are also helping to build their own country's economy.

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 04:07 PM
Or.... due to the sudden presence of large US multi-nationals, the cost-of-living rises to be equal to (or likely still higher) than whatever these people earn. Which then means that the people 'lucky' enough to be 'almost slaves' for Nike, etc - are the 'working rich', and everyone else becomes slightly poorer.
How is that any different than any other capitalistic society? Aren't there also still poor people in Australia and America, too?

Also, in relation to triple the price, it would *certainly* be possible to manufacture clothing in the US directly competitive with Nike, etc in terms of quality, if a company was able to succeed without the money (and also profit percentage) required for branding, especially in this internet-oriented society.
Making less profit is unacceptable for the shareholders of American companies. And who are the shareholders? It's the general pubic and everyone who owns a mutual fund which is just about everyone in the U.S.

Oh my. Deplorable logic. The end justifies the means? I don't think so. That's possible the worst thing I've seen you say in my year on these boards.
Would you be willing to lower your own standard of living in half or more just so that the workers in China can make more money? No? Then it's YOU that's justifying the means, isn't it?

People scream their heads off about the hit to their standard of living when just gas prices alone go up by only 10%. Can you imagine the uproar if everything made in China went up in price by 200%? And just about everything is made in China these days.

OrangeOne
06-28-2007, 04:30 PM
Making less profit is unacceptable for the shareholders of American companies. And who are the shareholders? It's the general pubic and everyone who owns a mutual fund which is just about everyone in the U.S.


You don't get it, do you? You buy so many breathemacrobarricade17X's, so many St Vincent K 90y's, that you can't imagine a world where the focus of product manufacture could not be based on brand, and where you can't imagine a world where profit is the centre of everything? Most small businesses barely make 'profit', they usually just pay staff. I'm comfortable with this scenario on any scale.

By the way: Wake up & open your eyes. Step outside the climate control and away from the plasma screen. If you think 'just about everyone' in the US owns a mutual fund, you're way too myopic for your own good.

Would you be willing to lower your own standard of living in half or more just so that the workers in China can make more money? No? Then it's YOU that's justifying the means, isn't it?

A. Don't answer questions you're asking me on my behalf and then predicate arguments on it - it's a horrid style of debate.
B. Don't twist my words.

For the record: to halve the average western-world standard of living would still mean we could all live exceptionally comfortably. Personally, I live at a 'more basic ' standard than I did 5 years ago, a shift I hope to continue.

People scream their heads off about the hit to their standard of living when just gas prices alone go up by only 10%. Can you imagine the uproar if everything made in China went up in price by 200%? And just about everything is made in China these days.

Thanks for the information, I'm completely aware of the breadth and depth of Chinese manufacturing. Can I imagine the uproar? Absolutely, because as China strengthens over the next few decades, we are going to see rising prices. Would I care if absolute prices rise if the standards of living of the poorest in the world rise too? Not one tiny bit.

stormholloway
06-28-2007, 05:01 PM
Which means triple the price for shoes and shirts since American workers make more than 10 times what Chinese workers make. American people have already voted no with their pocketbooks.

No, it's the customers that would rather pay $100 instead of $300 for a pair of Nike Vapor IV's that are taking advantage of the poor conditions of other nations. But it's also the poor workers who are taking advantage of Nike to make a better living than they could otherwise.

How much are you implying that these shoes cost to make? Seems like you're undestimating the profits of these shoe companies. You also act like it's some paradox that you can make products in your own country and be successful. There was a time when products were made here in this country.

Hey, somebody has to make shoes for the rest of the world. Do you want to do it?

I'm talking about poor working conditions, child labor, non-existance of a minimum wage, etc., all of which helped to build the American economy. I'm certainly not saying that it's right, but it's how economies get built more quickly than they could otherwise.

You don't have an economy until you have a strong middle class. When you have multinational corporations paying scraps for manufacturing, you create an economic divide.

The Chinese economy is the fastest growing economy in the world and has been for quite a few years now. How do you think they're doing it? With magic? What do you think would happen if they raised the wages for Chinese workers to anything even remotely close to that of American workers? The Chinese economy would come to a standstill. All the foreign companies, and even the Chinese companies, would leave immediately and look for cheaper labor elsewhere. Do the Chinese workers or even the government want this? Of course not! There are many other countries in the world that would love for Nike to set up a factory in their country and give it's people jobs and to boost its economy and exports.

Yet the overall quality of life remains low for the average Chinese person. Why?

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 05:33 PM
How much are you implying that these shoes cost to make? Seems like you're undestimating the profits of these shoe companies. You also act like it's some paradox that you can make products in your own country and be successful. There was a time when products were made here in this country.
Making shoes is very labor intensive. That's why most shoes are made in China and other low labor cost countries. Can you imagine if the cost of labor went up by 10 times? You do the math.

You don't have an economy until you have a strong middle class. When you have multinational corporations paying scraps for manufacturing, you create an economic divide.

It may be "scraps" for you and I, but it certainly is not for the average Chinese worker, and is still more than they could make elsewhere. China is indeed in the process of building a large middle class. In fact, new millionaires are being minted just about every day in China. As with anywhere else, it's the entrepreneurs that are making the big bucks.

BTW, have you noticed that it's the middle class in America that is currently being decimated while the middle class in China grows?

Yet the overall quality of life remains low for the average Chinese person. Why?
Where did you get that idea? Have you been to China lately? The overall quality of life for the average Chinese person is significanly higher than it was 20 years ago. 20 years ago, most were peasants.

It may be low compared to you and I, but give them another 20 years. The U.S. economy wasn't built overnight, either.

Ripper
06-28-2007, 05:35 PM
I don't know you, but most people don't buy everything Federer (or whoever their favourite player is) uses, just the individual items they like the most. This is one of the reasons why Nike and their competitors are offering more and more alternatives. They want to make sure something catches these people's eyes.

Mad iX
06-28-2007, 05:37 PM
Nevermind the consumers, the real crime are the sweatshops they run. Some poor chinese dude works on a 12hr shift making 30 cents for the day. The shirt costs $5 to make but they sell it for 50!

To be fair, there are marketing/endorsement costs, someone is designing the clothing, they have to cover the cost of the factory and raw materials, and then ship it from China, import tax, sales tax, sales guys, delivery to retail outlets, etc.

So, their margin isn't 1000% as you say. Probably closer to 400%. Still a rip, just not as much as you think, lol.

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 05:46 PM
You don't get it, do you? You buy so many breathemacrobarricade17X's, so many St Vincent K 90y's, that you can't imagine a world where the focus of product manufacture could not be based on brand, and where you can't imagine a world where profit is the centre of everything? Most small businesses barely make 'profit', they usually just pay staff. I'm comfortable with this scenario on any scale.
I think you're the one who "doesn't get it". The purpose of Nike, or any other public corporation, is not to make shoes or iPhones or cars or washing machines, etc. It's to make profits! That's why and how they exist. If they didn't make profits, they would go out of business, the shareholders would fire the CEO, they could not raise the funds to develop new products, and/or another company that can make profits will buy them out. That's capitalism. What you're advocating is communism.

By the way: Wake up & open your eyes. Step outside the climate control and away from the plasma screen. If you think 'just about everyone' in the US owns a mutual fund, you're way too myopic for your own good.
The last I checked, you do not live in the U.S. so what do you know about what goes on in America? FYI, just about all American workers have 401k retirement plans and those plans are all invested in mutual funds. Even a majority of Americans own individual stocks, and almost all have a stake in mutual funds. End of lesson.

For the record: to halve the average western-world standard of living would still mean we could all live exceptionally comfortably. Personally, I live at a 'more basic ' standard than I did 5 years ago, a shift I hope to continue.

How about reducing your "basic" standard of living by another 70%? Would you be willing to pay $300 for your tennis shoes or $600 for your tennis racquets? Both are all made in China.

Thanks for the information, I'm completely aware of the breadth and depth of Chinese manufacturing. Can I imagine the uproar? Absolutely, because as China strengthens over the next few decades, we are going to see rising prices. Would I care if absolute prices rise if the standards of living of the poorest in the world rise too? Not one tiny bit.
How about if the standard of living in the richest countries, including Australia, goes down the toilet at the same time? Would you care then?

BTW, do you have a graduate degree in international economics?

Mnguyen05
06-28-2007, 05:48 PM
Yeah, but who's counting? ;) LOL

Naw, I don't count. I just have a good memory. Photogenic memory to be exact =]

OrangeOne
06-28-2007, 06:36 PM
I think you're the one who "doesn't get it". The purpose of Nike, or any other public corporation, is not to make shoes or iPhones or cars or washing machines, etc. It's to make profits! That's why and how they exist. If they didn't make profits, they would go out of business, the shareholders would fire the CEO, they could not raise the funds to develop new products, and/or another company that can make profits will buy them out. That's capitalism. What you're advocating is communism.

Why thanks for that little unrequested eco101 lesson... But it's also a little bit of a lesson in failed reading comprehension.

Go back, re-read my post, and tell me if you can't see that I've alluded to a line somewhere between rampant capitalism and communism. Too radical a concept for you to comprehend just because it doesn't involve a 100% profit-focus?

The last I checked, you do not live in the U.S. so what do you know about what goes on in America?

That is possibly the single-most patronising and just plain stupid thing I've ever read someone say on these boards. (I'm even considering making it my footer!). How could someone from one country possibly understand what occurs in another?

FYI, just about all American workers have 401k retirement plans and those plans are all invested in mutual funds. Even a majority of Americans own individual stocks, and almost all have a stake in mutual funds. End of lesson.

Why thanks for that little lesson. Now - instead of rattling on - show me what percentage of all occupants of the US have mutual funds, and if it's more than 95% (just about all), then I'll concede this point. Make sure you include all people who have exited or completed secondary / tertiary education, and not just those actively, permanently and legally employed. Probably also a good idea to make sure you include the millions of retired folk who would have used up their funds too.

How about reducing your "basic" standard of living by another 70%?

I don't have time to analyse this now, but I will address it later.

Would you be willing to pay $300 for your tennis shoes or $600 for your tennis racquets? Both are all made in China.

Sorry, I play with Yonex, and there's this little sticker that says "Made in Japan" on it. So it seems not all tennis racquets are made in China. I'll check my shoes later....

And would I pay those price for those items? Absolutely, if they were made ethically. As it stands, tennis is a very cheap sport.

How about if the standard of living in the richest countries, including Australia, goes down the toilet at the same time? Would you care then?

Would I sacrifice a significant chunk of my standard of living in the current country I live in if it led to some form of substantive increase in global equity? Absolutely. I care little for 'countries', I care much more for 'people'. I realise this may be a hard concept for you to grasp.

BTW, do you have a graduate degree in international economics?

Did I say I did? And was that an entry-condition to this discussion? Don't try playing your patronising games BP, they're not going to work here.

stevekim8
06-28-2007, 08:10 PM
well obviously he gotta changes clothes cause of all those sweats :D
gotta do laundry

Safina
06-28-2007, 08:54 PM
obviously, BP is a NIKE shareholder!
or just a blowhard... i dunno.

their prices are ridiculous, but so are LaCoste and a bunch of other
"premium" brands.

Shame on the consumer for paying it.
There are those that drive in Escalades, wearing Nike/LaCoste, and burning money in equally silly ways. And the economy loves them for it.
But it is still disgusting, just like excess in anything.

I think the US is learning the benefits of "less is more" approach, but very slowly. And those that are slow to change, or just coming into money are going to splurge still... and then try to defend it with some economic or political ideology.

There will always be PIGS and LAMBS on the farm... which are you?
(just made that up... dunno)

jinsol
06-28-2007, 09:39 PM
breakpoint u perplex me. before i would have said that what nike was doing was wrong but now reading your posts youve managed to make me change my mind. ive noticed a pattern of breakpoint having different opinions and being able to back it up with some pretty good stuff instead of avoiding answering the question and pretending to be too good to answer most of the time.

that being said i have a question directed to stormholloway, orangeone and breakpoint,(and this isnt meant to challenge you or threaten u or watever, its JUST a question). and please be honest when i ask, do YOU buy nike apparel?

stormholloway
06-28-2007, 09:42 PM
Hell yes. I love Nike's gear, but I still don't approve of the manufacturing. I buy a superior product under most conditions.

gery
06-28-2007, 10:08 PM
It doesn't matter how you look like on the courts but how you play!

stormholloway
06-28-2007, 10:11 PM
Of course it matters how you look.

BreakPoint
06-28-2007, 10:21 PM
Hell yes. I love Nike's gear, but I still don't approve of the manufacturing. I buy a superior product under most conditions.
Well, there you go. That means you do support Nike's manufacturing policies since you buy their products, and probably enjoy not having to pay triple the price that you do pay for them.

As for me? Yes, I buy a lot of Nike products. The more I buy, the more jobs it creates for those poor people in China and the faster their economy will grow. Eventually, they will become a developed country and the low-end manufacturing will move to the next poor developing country. Japan was where China is now 40 years ago and look at where Japan is today. It has one of the highest standards of living in the world. We all have to get there somehow and this is the way most countries get there.

goober
06-28-2007, 11:13 PM
I never feel ripped off by Nike, because I only buy their stuff when it reaches what I consider an acceptable price point. If people want to spend $65 on a tennis shirt, they should not be complaining about being ripped off.

OrangeOne
06-29-2007, 12:15 AM
that being said i have a question directed to stormholloway, orangeone and breakpoint,(and this isnt meant to challenge you or threaten u or watever, its JUST a question). and please be honest when i ask, do YOU buy nike apparel?

Where possible, I avoid major brands for two reasons,

1. They are usually a supreme waste of money
2. Many have questionable manufacturing practice.

That said, in some sectors there exists few options. I'm yet to find a pair of non-brand shorts that can compete with the branded offerings out there. The last pair of tennis shorts I bought were Reebok, and they were from a discount store for $19 aussie (about $15 US). At least I avoided paying supremely ridiculous prices for them. Tennis shoes (and many shoes in general) are another market where it's hard to find good product outside the main brands, that said I usually only buy asics / new balance / brooks in sports shoes, these are the brands that focus much more on 'shoe design' from a functional point of view.

More on this later, I must run.

stormholloway
06-29-2007, 07:57 AM
Well, there you go. That means you do support Nike's manufacturing policies since you buy their products, and probably enjoy not having to pay triple the price that you do pay for them.

As for me? Yes, I buy a lot of Nike products. The more I buy, the more jobs it creates for those poor people in China and the faster their economy will grow. Eventually, they will become a developed country and the low-end manufacturing will move to the next poor developing country. Japan was where China is now 40 years ago and look at where Japan is today. It has one of the highest standards of living in the world. We all have to get there somehow and this is the way most countries get there.

You're out of your mind. New Balance still makes some of its shoes in this country and I'm pretty sure the shoes don't cost 300 dollars as you imply. Nike would still make huge margins even if the shoes were made in the US. You act like it's not financially viable to make products in the States.

You're really saying that if Nike shoes were made in the US that they would cost over 300 dollars? I still don't see one pair of shoes costing Nike more than 20 bucks to manufacture in the US.

BreakPoint
06-29-2007, 11:59 AM
Nike would still make huge margins even if the shoes were made in the US.
If that were true, Nike would still be making all of their shoes in the U.S., wouldn't they? But they make none here. Hmmmm......

goosala
06-29-2007, 05:18 PM
Orangeone, what I meant by "apparel" is what clothing is sold in tennis shops and is rather expensive at $50 plus for a shirt. I think you know what I meant since you seem to know everything about this particular thread.